Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

Background

Mauvareen Beverley, a medical doctor and former Assistant Vice President at the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H+H), brought claims alleging discrimination based on race, age, and Caribbean descent. The opinion states that she asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York City Human Rights Law, including hostile-work-environment claims under the city law. Beverley alleged that she was treated less favorably than younger white employees and was terminated on January 5, 2018, after organizational changes connected to Huron’s recommendations.

The opinion addressed only Beverley’s discovery motion. After discovery began, she sought an order compelling H+H to produce witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) and to produce documents identified during depositions of H+H witnesses and former employee Robert Melican.

Rule 30(b)(6) Requests

The court first held that the defendants’ objections to Beverley’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice were timely. Although the objections were served five months after the notice, the court found that the defendants had engaged in good-faith discussions about narrowing the topics, produced two witnesses on some subjects, and that Rule 30(b)(6) does not establish a specific deadline for objections.

The court found that categories A, B, F, and G were not relevant. Those categories sought broad information about the Finance Department over periods extending largely beyond Beverley’s 2018 termination and covering departments in which she had not worked. The court also found categories I, J, K, and L not relevant because Beverley did not adequately explain how information about the identified units and initiatives was relevant to her claims.

The court did not find categories C and D irrelevant after Beverley clarified that she sought information only from January 1, 2014, through June 2018. However, the court held that those categories were not described with reasonable particularity. They would require a witness to identify potentially dozens or hundreds of employees and their responsibilities over several years, and the court concluded that this information would be better sought through written discovery.

Category H concerned Beverley’s role in the Finance Department during her employment. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that this testimony would be unreasonably cumulative. Although Beverley and Anantharam had testified about her role, they had testified as individual fact witnesses rather than as representatives of H+H. Their testimony therefore did not have the same binding effect on H+H. The court granted the motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for category H.

Document Requests

The court held that document request 3 from Anantharam’s deposition, seeking Finance budgets for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and documents related to the budget-making process, was disproportionate to the needs of the case. Beverley did not sufficiently explain why all budget cuts in Central Office Finance over those three years were relevant to her claims rather than limited to changes associated with her termination.

The court likewise held that document request 7, seeking communications between Brezenoff and Anantharam about retaining Huron or using Huron for revenue-management services, was overbroad and disproportionate. Beverley argued that the Huron contract allegedly resulted in her termination, but the court concluded that seeking all communications about the contract was not proportional to her claims.

For document request 5 from Anantharam’s deposition, the defendants said they had produced a list of 534 new hires and promotions in Finance between 2017 and September 11, 2023. Beverley argued that the list did not show whether new budget lines were created or whether employees occupied the budget line allegedly eliminated when she was terminated. The court directed the defendants to provide a declaration stating that they had produced all responsive documents or to provide additional responsive documents within their custody and control.

The court issued the same type of directive concerning the request from Melican’s deposition for job descriptions for six members of his staff. Although the defendants had produced functional job descriptions, they did not expressly state that any more detailed responsive documents did not exist or were outside their possession, custody, or control.

Disposition

The court concluded that the motion to compel was granted as to the Rule 30(b)(6) notice concerning category H, but denied for the remaining Rule 30(b)(6) topics and the document requests from the Anantharam and Melican depositions. The defendants were directed to provide the two declarations by May 28, 2024. The opinion did not decide the merits of Beverley’s discrimination claims.